Foul Winds
Evidence of the fraud, waste and abuse following Hurricane Katrina keeps blowing our way.
Now comes a report by the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security, which concludes that the Federal Emergency Management Agency paid out millions in excessive costs because controls on contractors "were not always implemented and enforced." (Love that sexy IG lingo!)
The report said that FEMA had hired some contractors to identify sites for temporary housing and do some design and prep work. The contractors also were supposed to provide maintenance and security.
In case you were wondering, the contractors inclulde Fluor Enterprises, Shaw Group, Bechtel National and CH2M Hill Constructors. As a reader pointed out, the auditors did not look at sites run by all the contractors.
"We judgmentally selected three Hill sites for comparison because the reasons for rejection were similar to those given for the Shaw sites, but the estimated costs were much lower with each being under $50,000. No specific Fluor sites were reviewed; and Bechtel had no rejected sites."
The report said FEMA did not "consistently enforce the controls and follow up on outstanding matters in a timely manner."
"In addition, not all contractors were in compliance with the requirements of the contract. In some cases, the contractor did not conduct thorough assessments of the proposed sites, did not obtain permits as required," the report says.
When FEMA rejected 176 sites as unworkable, they paid cancellation fees to the contractors.
About $5.6 million in those fees was deemed "excessive."
<
By Robert O'Harrow |
September 5, 2008; 11:13 AM ET
Previous: Acts of Nature |
Next: British Insecurity
Posted by: qwerty | September 5, 2008 1:10 PM
Thanks for the great reporting suggesting all 4 companies were committing fraud. This report was about Shaw Groups cost of 800 to 1000% higher than the other contractors. I would recommend reading the report yourself before making a judgement based on lousy reporting.
"While Fluor and Hill’s average cost per site was substantially lower then Shaw’s, we did not determine the reasonableness of their costs. However, we noted that the lower average costs for sites rejected by Hill were attributed to the contractor’s more thorough site assessments and early identification and communication of potential problems to the Project Review Board."
Posted by: Bird | September 8, 2008 9:15 AM
Thank you, President Bush, and Republicans in Congress, for "freedom". Yes, you have removed restrictions on business so it can freely fleece consumers, plunder our natural resources, and control the U.S. Government. You've made loan-sharking legal for home mortgages, and privatized government agencies so they don't work and cost 3 times more. In just 7 years, you doubled the national debt from $5T to $10T, and 2/3 of businesses pay no taxes.
Posted by: Chuck | September 15, 2008 4:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
While there were 4 no bid contracts awarded, the review performed and report only covers work executed in Louisiana. Bechtel did no work in Louisiana, as all Bechtel work was performed in Mississippi. The report examined and found fault with work performed by the other 3 contractors, and the report specifically says there were no Bechtel sites rejected. Hence, Bechtel should not be included in your article about the report, where you include Bechtel in the list of contractors along with a quote from the report concerning compliance.